La Opinión, Editorial, Posted: Jun 25, 2008
The Supreme Court was wrong to refuse to hear an appeal by environmental organizations to stop the construction of the wall along the United States-Mexico border. The high court was able to avoid giving its opinion this time. But, we hope that in future legal challenges, it will rule on the legality of the procedures being followed by the federal government.
In the first place, the wall is an offensive idea that violates the fundamental principle of integration across the North American region. Its construction reflects an anachronistic approach to the immigration issue in which the United States is using medieval and Cold War strategies like putting up walls instead of developing policies consistent with the globalized 21st Century.
More specifically, in this recent Arizona legal challenge against the wall, the constitutionality of the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to ignore 36 environmental laws during the wall’s construction is called into question.
The next chapter in the legal battle will be in Texas. Added to the environmentalists will be 400 landowners who charge the federal government with illegally confiscating portions of their land to build the wall.
Once again, as in the case of the "mismatch letters" and other similar actions, the Bush Administration is trying to improvise an immigration policy without taking into account the consequences triggered, the rights violated, or the injustices committed.
Building a wall along the border is bad policy. As long as it continues, the courts have the responsibility to stop the abuse of authority that stems from its implementation. |
From BorderSentry - 25 Jun 2008 @ 07:50 pm
